Category: Youth and the Law Page 1 of 4

Commented On: Bills 26, 27, and 29 (Alberta, 31^st Legislature, 1^st Session)

PDF Version: Alberta’s Bills Targeting Gender Diverse Youth: Comparisons, Constitutional Issues, and Challenges

On December 3, 2024, the Alberta Legislature passed Bills 26, 27, and 29. These Bills place restrictions on gender diverse youth in the areas of health care, education, and sports respectively. This development means that Canada now has three provinces that have introduced legislation (in the case of Saskatchewan and Alberta) and/or policies (in the case of New Brunswick and Saskatchewan) targeting gender diverse youth. Only one of those provinces, Alberta, has included health care restrictions in its reforms. While these types of restrictions are not widespread in Canada, they deeply impact the individuals affected and their families.

UCP Grievance and Culture-War Politics Enter Schools

By Shaun Fluker

On November 28, 2024

In Law Reform, Youth and the Law

By: Shaun Fluker and JD Students in the Public Interest Law Clinic

Bill Commented On: Bill 27 Education Amendment Act, 2024, 1^st Sess, 31^st Leg, 2024 (passed second reading Nov 19)

PDF Version: UCP Grievance and Culture-War Politics Enter Schools

On October 31 the Minister of Education introduced Bill 27 into the Alberta Legislature with the following comments: “The bill will provide clarity, consistency, and transparency to education policies in schools across Alberta. Parents across the province want to be more involved and have a larger say in their child’s education, and we are happy to strengthen their involvement through these proposed amendments.” This is a very bland introduction for a Bill that, if passed, will amend the Education Act, SA 2012, c E-0.3, to accomplish three objectives: (1) restrict the ability of schools to implement public health emergency measures; (2) require Ministerial approval of curriculum materials on gender identity, sexual orientation, and human sexuality; and (3) restrict the liberty of youth to use gender affirming names or pronouns in school. Bill 27 also grants a lot more than just a ‘larger say’ to parents – the amendments to the Education Act in the Bill grant parental control over the application of public health emergency measures, the delivery of educational materials on gender identity, sexual orientation, and human sexuality, and the use of gender affirming names or pronouns in schools. Suffice it to say, this is not what governing in the public interest looks like.

Seismic Shift: The Notwithstanding Clause and Litigation on the Rights of Trans and Gender Diverse Youth

By Jennifer Koshan

On February 23, 2024

In Constitutional, Human Rights, Provincial Court, Youth and the Law

By: Jennifer Koshan

Case Commented On: UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity v Government of Saskatchewan, 2024 SKKB 23 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Seismic Shift: The Notwithstanding Clause and Litigation on the Rights of Trans and Gender Diverse Youth

ABlawg has been following the introduction of government restrictions aimed at trans and gender diverse youth since last fall (see here and here). The latest development comes from Saskatchewan, where on February 16, the Court of King’s Bench permitted a constitutional challenge by UR Pride to proceed despite the government having invoked the notwithstanding clause in section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

An Open Letter to Premier Danielle Smith Re: “Preserving choice for children and youth” Announcement

By Admin

On February 15, 2024

In Constitutional, Equality, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, Youth and the Law

Matter Commented On: Government of Alberta, News Release, “Preserving choice for children and youth” (1 February 2024)

PDF Version: An Open Letter to Premier Danielle Smith Re: “Preserving choice for children and youth” Announcement

Editor’s Note:

This post is a reproduction of a letter sent by faculty members, legal researchers, and staff at the University of Alberta and University of Calgary Faculties of Law to the Premier of Alberta regarding the government’s announcement of restrictions targeting transgender youth.

Premier Danielle Smith
Office of the Premier
307 Legislature Building
10800 – 97 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta
T5K 2B6

By email: premier@gov.ab.ca

12 February 2024

Dear Premier Smith:

Re: “Preserving choice for children and youth” announcement

We are faculty members, legal researchers, and staff at the University of Alberta and University of Calgary Faculties of Law. We have come together to express our deep concerns with the government’s announcement of restrictions targeting transgender youth. These restrictions will harm Two-Spirit, trans, and gender diverse children and youth by undermining their education, restricting their access to healthcare, and narrowing their sport and recreation opportunities. We believe these restrictions violate their rights, as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”).

R v Theriault: A Case of Epistemic Injustice

By Brynne Harding

On October 20, 2020

In Access to Justice, Criminal, Equality, Youth and the Law

By: Brynne Harding

PDF Version: R v Theriault: A Case of Epistemic Injustice

Case Commented On: R v Theriault, 2020 ONSC 3317 (CanLII)

On the morning of Friday, June 26, 2020 – among more than 20,000 other people – I tuned into the YouTube live stream on which Ontario Superior Court Justice Joseph DiLuca gave his judgment in the criminal trials of Michael and Christian Theriault (R v Theriault, 2020 ONSC 3317 (CanLII)). The brothers, one of whom is a Toronto police officer, stood accused of assault and aggravated assault on Dafonte Miller, a young Black man, who lost his eye in their clash.

Const. Michael Theriault was acquitted of aggravated assault and attempting to obstruct justice in the case, and was convicted only of the lesser charge of simple assault. His brother Christian Theriault was acquitted of all charges. On August 6, 2020, it was announced that the Crown has appealed the acquittals.

The Theriault acquittals unsettled me – persistently, in the weeks to follow. The accused were acquitted of aggravated assault, despite strong Crown evidence, and fact findings of the court, that the two grown white men had gratuitously and violently beaten Miller, a Black teenager. Nearly as unsettling was the fact that the trial judge had insisted, capably, and with sophistication, that he understood what he called the “racialized context” of the encounter (at para 11). The objective of this post is to explore the apparent contradiction in Theriault between the verdicts, on one hand, and Justice DiLuca’s claim that he considered the racialized context, on the other. This post does not purport to be an appellate brief for the Crown, although some argument relates to potential legal and factual errors in Theriault.